tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 8, 2010 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
i think we should be talking and working were eventually -- it will be the hardest thing in the world, but easier than kashmir coming to the indians and pakistanis to talk neutrally. they both have that in their interest. instead, i am not sure what we're up to. >> i think they hold the key to a successful outcome in afghanistan. let's see. over here. >> someone in the back. >> compliments to the authors and the other panelists. i encourage the panel to expand of little about where you think
the future director of the indian strategic nuclear arsenal might be headed. this afternoon, we offered a couple of different things. there has been a heavy emphasis on a restraint. another theme is the recurring suggestion that there are potential disconnects between basic strategic principles, and the sorts of decisions or non- decisions that occur the city -- -avis defense. the panel's thoughts? >> i will say a word or two. the indians have a major nuclear
weapons program will require more testing. i think the challenge for india is that they grow their nuclear program without testing. the danger is the fact that the pakistanis are out raising them. -- our racing them. i think it is a big barrier. >> i would just say that this is a very -- very peculiar race. evidence shows that the indians are not racing, which can mean one of two things -- either they are, in fact racing, and nobody else knows about it because they are doing it so efficiently, or
they actually believe in a minimal deterrence, even if others do not believe in that. so, if you look at some of the indicators, like, for example, the ballistic missile heavilyon, it's biased toward low end of the spectrum. there does not seem to be a discernible sign that they will want more if they can get away with less. now, how do you explain this? there are two explanations. one is that they are truly strategically messed up -- they do not understand the relationship between requirements and what they actually have to do. the other is a bureaucratic explanation that the drivers of their program are essentially
part of the civilian nuclear establishment who consider nuclear weapons to be second- rate things, compared to other civilian applications of nuclear energy. when faced with a trade-off, they will continue to put most of their resources in applications, rather than go out and build bigger and better bombs. the third hypothesis is that indian civilian leadership just believes that nuclear weapons are such a powerful deterrent that you really do not need to many of them, as long as you are convinced your adversaries do not know what you have, and where you have them. the assumption being that these devices are such a nasty things
that even having a hand full of them by as you all of the deterrence you need in most of the conceivable scenarios. how this changes will be interesting to watch. today, what i find most surprising is the indians' reluctance to race, even though there is enough evidence to point out that the chinese and pakistan is are moving at a faster pace. -- at a faster level. >> i must say there is no surprising thing when steve rights of book.
the title is very intriguing, the mice -- i must say. i wonder why he thinks the indians are sold dumb that they are building weapons said they do not know what they will do with. the other thing that might have mentioned was that [unintelligible] you do not need nuclear submarines to fight insurgency. and the bomb they attacked, if something happened again, india might choose to go on a different route. is it that simple? if al qaeda wants india and pakistan go into war, they just need to have another attack in india?
will it be enough for india to attack pakistan? the other thing is that we should understand that the total integrity is interdependent. if anyone starts cracking, it will have a domino effect. my question is coming. i am getting close to my question. the population of india below popping up -- poverty levels, and i think someone can come up with the exact figure, and all of the resources being used for a human destruction, why can they not be used to improve the quality of life, living conditions, and the structure, and given a future to the people of india? [unintelligible]
this mahomet gandhi was alive today, what kind of device which he did to the indian leadership? >> we will take that as a comment, not a question. [laughter] the gentleman in the back. >> we are prisoners of the past. when you talk about military, there are at least two wars in the past. we have to project that in a linear fashion. i would like you to comment on the macro side in the sense that the borders were imposed by the british on the locals. the chinese border was [unintelligible]
then, [unintelligible] acted on his temper, winston churchill -- and his emperor, winston churchill. why is this border so solid? secondly, on pakistan, you have an enormous tragedy. what are the opportunities for the bigger the deal maker? >> let me comment on that, not the last part, because we are still discovering what is happening in pakistan -- it is mostly bad, but there could be a good side -- and let me get back to the first part of the question, india and pakistan. that is my next book. hopefully, three years from now i will tell you about that book.
the title right now is the second hundred year war. this is one of the protracted conflict of the world, and now it has been nuclearized. i will look at whether the war will go on indefinitely, or if it float -- or if there is a way out. i will defer answering your question for another three years. gentlemen in the back. >> for the last couple of years we have read about indian and chinese and the structure and modification along the borders. india has then modernizing its
military. the strategic culture is changing. while india arm and came toward china? -- we will in the arm and a beam toward china? -- arm and aim toward china? >> i think the basis of the book is that the indian government does not have a basis right now, and if you go into the future things did different, but it does not seem like the indian government wants a direct confrontation with the chinese government. it is partly because india is way behind china in the military and economic terms, and also, they see arms race in as counterproductive to the nation-
building at home. so, what you do see, in fact, in the last 10 or 12 years, india and china have actually tried to develop something of a cooperative relationship, though, clearly, there is this military and its structure that is the -- infrastructure development that is going on. china did distance itself a little bit from pakistan, and that sort of stabilize the situation a little bit. i think indian leaders have gone out of their way, repeatedly, to say that their relationship with the united states is not aimed toward china.
>> thank you. congratulations. both of you have then mentors in different ways. you guys brought me and when you were doing your idea of pakistan book to book teems. -- brookings. of thinking specifically things at the higher end of the technological specter. india might be employed in those things for technological reasons. what does it do to strategic stability in the region in the meanwhile? a country like pakistan will respond with its own measures as
india makes these acquisitions, whether or not they are targeted against pakistan at all. pakistan cannot be sure, because india is not sure. if you predict this forward, am i correct in saying that pakistan will probably become more and more paranoia -- paranoid? or, is there a very urgent need for countries like the u.s., pakistan, and india, to find ways to bring their countries to a resolution before we get to that stage? >> do you want to talk about bmd? >> the simple answer is related to security. i think this is inevitable that you will have acquisitions on
either side that will be seen as threatening by the other, and each side will have very good reasons for what they set out to do in terms of their on frame of reference, and will run all of the risks that come from a competitive response from the other. there have been very few instances where states have actually been able to manage their competition. the u.s. and the soviet union provide two good--- could counter-examples. remember both of those dynamics came into play in the context of strategic access on both sides -- access in both sides.
i do not see this conflict has been in that position today. each side believes that certain, marginal additions have greater than proportional benefits, so they will go out and require -- to acquire those capabilities, and then you have a process that requires counter-response. >> the security the llama is a very important thing to keep in mind -- de la motte his a very important thing to keep in mind. india and pakistan will need to sort this out over time. in terms of nuclear weapons, and building of the nuclear arsenal, india has not wanted to race. there are a lot of reports saying that the pakistani missile program has increased much faster than the indians
expect or want. it has still not moved the indians to get into a race. given that constraint at the highest technological level, in a way, the weapons that are being bought, the conventional weapons, may or might not have a muted effect. i agree that there are going to need to play out this dilemma again over a period of time. >> i am slightly more optimistic that they could acquire the weapons for symbolic purposes you have airlines, football teams, and cricket teams in south asia right now. maybe they can agree that the weapons can be bought in token numbers. maybe i am an idealist in a way.
>> steve mentioned the need for the indians to convince the of their real intentions toward -- intentions. taking into account the relatively open policies we have in india and pakistan, and the intellectual got available in both societies, is this situation right for the extensive use of back channel diplomacy, that might able to get discussions going that might not be available at the government level. >> i gave up on track two of long time ago because i thought it was an opportunity for farmers to meet, burn up airline
miles, and say nothing. when i started working with younger indians and pakistanis, i thought it was much more useful. i think back channels dept. diplomacy is important, but most of it is a waste of time -- back channel the post -- diplomacy is important, but most of it is a waste of time there is a new book that says these things do not happen from the bottom up, but from the top down. denny's to be a strategic decision by -- there needs to be a strategic decision by leaders. i tend to be skeptical about track two. i think you need to work with policymakers and explain they might be driving their country
over a cliff. by itself, it will not cut through. i want to thank my coat panelists, especially my co- author. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama will talk about the economy later this afternoon. right now, he is traveling to ohio. we will have live coverage of that at 2:10 eastern, here, on c-span. we have more live programing later with a discussion on the future of north korea. coming up saturday, it is the
mark of the ninth anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attacks. we will be live featuring aviation officials who will recount that day from 2001. >> at long last, the united states of america joins every other industrial nation in the world that says health care is our right, not a privilege. senators and congressmen have been holding town hall meetings, and we have been covering them. watch them in our video library. it is all searchable, and free, on your computer, any time. the c-span and networks. we provide coverage of pop -- of politics, and nonfiction literature. find our contact anytime through our video library. we take our -- we take c-span on
the road with our digital boss and local content vehicle. it was created by cable, provided as a public service. now, the veterans affairs secretary speaking to the american legion the and milwaukee. he will be speaking about agent orange, and golf-war related illnesses. >> thank you for your leadership. the legion has been well served. i know secretary gates has just
spoken and departed. he might not be on the promises anymore, but i would like to acknowledge and turned the last time he and i were close to being on the same stage together was at a mental health conference, which i thought was fitting. [laughter] >> senator feingold might have already are arrived. congressman more, thank you for both of them and their and waving -- unwavering support for veterans. then, the members of the legion compelled national maitre -- leadership, including the auxiliary president. other leaders of the legion family, it was good to see all of you again. fellow veterans, other
distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is good to be back at the annual convention, by 90 seconds. i am honored to be here with an organization that traces its roots back to 1919. it has been a powerful voice on behalf of veterans rights, whether it was on behalf of congress, the oval office, or all across the country whenever veterans need your help. over the years, the va and the american legion have collaborated on many projects to serve our veterans. my opinion is that the relationship has never been stronger, more trusting, or more productive, and i would offer to you that these are not accidental, nor a matter of personal work.
these are concerned efforts by both the va and the american legion. [applause] >> i will go into a little bit of detail with you today to tell you what we think we have accomplished, and where we are headed. i will also tell you there will always be on finished work. i have been in this position for about 20 months, and i have figured out that there will always be on finished work. that is the nature of the mission. for all of us, we will continue to fight for resources, priorities, and take care of veterans. we have established priorities, and with the increased funding provided by president obama and the congress, we are addressing those priorities. let me go into specifics about where we have come.
in 2009, just as a reminder, we had a congressional the enhanced budget of about $99.8 billion -- congressional-enhanced, the budget i inherited when i arrived. it was significant because it allowed us to begin addressing a range of issues that have accumulated over time thanks to the congress, we were able to establish a framework for much needed change. like building a house or a building, you need the foundation first. if that is what we were taught in 2009 -- a framework that will enhance the veteran services, and improve the quality and safety of our health-care programs, and, then, equally importantly and -- reengineer
our processes to provide accountability to ensure the best returns on those investments. that was 2009. this year, a $14.2 billion, 60% increase to the 2009 budget. provided by president obama, it is the largest single-year increase in over 30 years for this department. [applause] >> the president has enabled us to put in place programs and procedures that will serve on veterans well into the next two decades. 2011, next year to the budget that is currently before the congress, the president's request is $125 billion, of $11
billion greater than this year, a 10% increase over the 2010 budget. it will give us much needed fire-power to increase access to our benefits and health-care services, and the disability claims backlog, and eliminate the veteran homelessness by 2015. now, -- [applause] >> thank you. to deliver all of this, the va must be, without hesitation, an advocate for veterans. this is part of a culture change that is under way. given the economic challenges facing the government and the nation, the $25 billion increase in the of the a's budget underscores the president's commitment to transforming the
va and fixing consistent problems that have plagued this department over the past decade. we in the department need a sense of urgency that matches the president's, that meant. we are developing it. -- commitment. we are developing it. this includes changing priorities, getting better results of the funding we have been provided, and generating new businesses that attract the money, and produces the biggest gains for veterans. we implemented the largest student 8 -- student aid package of its kind since the original g.i. bill of 1944. we have an additional 28,000 veterans and family members
enrolled in -- 3 and 28,000 veterans and family members enrolled in colleges. [applause] >> now, when you and crude -- and include the montgomery gi bill, that number goes up to nearly 600,000 veterans in families -- and family members in classrooms preparing for the next phase of their lives. [applause] >> we need their ingenuity. we need their leadership. we need their operational experience. we need their toughness. we need their discipline. yes, we need their dreams in american business and government today. as i tell them, the students, as i travel the campuses, unless they graduate, there is now paid off. we are excited about them. i am watching graduation rates.
i am dead. -- i am dad. i am determined to see them graduate. we have worked two hard issues and a ban on the back burner for decades. -- that has been on the back for decades. based on the requirements of the law, and the institute of medicine's findings, i decided evidence was sufficient to award funding to 3 double-dip -- three new decision -- diseases. [applause] >> please bring the total number of agent orange presumptions to
15. the president fully supported these presumptions, and the congress has appropriated money to begin making benefits payments to the two wanted 50,000 or so -- that two hundred 50,000 veterans or so there are expected to submit claims. as many of you now, i have been invited to testify in front of the veterans commission to explain these decisions. i am happy to do that. it was the right decision. the president and die are happy to provide this group of veterans -- the president and i are happy to provide this group of veterans the care and benefits they deserve. [applause] >> in the same vein, in march of this year we provided assumption of prevention 49 diseases.
-- for 9 diseases. we must continue to research what might have called these thomases, but that cannot be our -- what caused these diseases. that cannot be our primary goal. we are getting on with taking care of veterans. nine new diseases have that added. [applause] >> likewise, in july, we simplified claims and processing for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. this decision to end decades of focusing on documenting the stressor event -- sang like providing -- things like providing a six or eight-digit
accordant of where that event might have occurred. most of us could not have done that. not everyone had maps, remember? instead, we are streamlining the delivery of medical care and benefits to veterans suffering from verifiable posttraumatic syndrome from con back. -- combat. this is a generational issue. it is not iraq or afghanistan. it is all that serve in combat. whether it is world war ii, korea, vietnam, the gulf war one, or our current operation, these are the new rules on posttraumatic saw -- posttraumatic stress syndrome. [applause] >> we provided $4.5 billion for mental health programs in 2009. this year, we are spending an
additional three and $79 million on mental health. our mental half -- are mental health staff today numbers over 20,000. our priority is to diagnose, treat, and tear. if care is not possible, then diagnose, treat, and care will be the standard. [applause] >> we will not allow our veterans who have. the responsibility of -- who have carried the responsibility of our national security to languish for the rest of their lives without hope for ailments they cannot explain. for traumatic brain injury, we feel that a new which we feel that a new system to improve how
their evaluated. those that a what -- are arrived at our centers comatose with injuries that were thought to be irreversible. "usa today" recently reported on our successes, chronicling our reakthroughs in the emergening centers. throughout their care, increased resource in, and engaging families as co-providers, the eight facilities have brought nearly 70% of these comatose patients back to consciousness. this rate far exceeds the national norm.
this is your va, and we do not accept hopelessness. we do not accept hopelessness in our lexicon, not among the injured, not among the l, not among the homeless. there is much to be done in 2011. we will focus on three critical scott -- concerns of significant importance veterans talk to me about them when i travel. let me touch on each of these and how that are impacted. access. the aim must do better in reaching out to veterans to make sure they are aware of our programs and entitlements. i am constantly surprised when i encounter veterans that do not
know they have benefits and entitlements coming to them. with as much out reach as we do, we are not doing it in the way i think should be the standard. there is more work to be done. the work of the american legion in helping us without reached is so critical. access touches a broad range of issues -- everything from our hospitals to building new, community-based clinics, to mobile vans. access also includes supplying technology is to extend the a's -- the va's reach. in 2010, we have invested why
hundred $21 million in tele health technologies. veterans health care -- 6.1 million veterans, including 439,000 veterans of iraq and afghanistan will make an estimated 83 million outpatient visits to our facilities, and be treated as in patients, and be treated. those are working estimates. to address these large numbers, the va has program the following resources to care for them -- $6.8 billion for long-term care, an increase of 14% over this year. 2.6 billion dollars for care
for veterans of the iraq and afghanistan. it enables us to expand inpatient and outpatient services. $538 million for spinal cord injury programs, and 8% increase over 2010, and an 18% increase over 2009. to moderate $50 million to improve health care -- $250 million to improve health care for veterans at libya most rural areas of the country -- that olivia most rural areas of the country -- that live in the most rural ariels of the country.
we see it as a seamless transition as youngsters take off there in uniform. the benefits in 2009 -- we received for the first time ever, over 9 million claims. that will not go down. disability claims have increased 75% between 2000 and 2009. on average, what that means is 27,000 new claims been submitted every month. we have launched a campaign to attack the claims backlog. we intend to break the back of the backlog this year. it is a multi-front attack. [applause] >> it is i multi-pronged attack. we have set an ambitious objective of no claim over 125 days, and a 98% accuracy rate.
now, -- [applause] >> i think most of you know that our average is about 160 days. our goal is not an average of 125 days. our goal is no claim over what are the 25 days, and 98% accurate. in the last 18 months, we expanded our workforce, began expect that mean -- excepting online applications for benefits, initiated a national competition within its own workforce to get its best for, launched over 30 pilot programs, and invested over $138 million in debt paperless
veterans management system which we will deploy in fiscal year 2012. this is 2010, and i know it seems like it is two years away, but it is only 14 months away. the eight award -- the va awarded money to agent orange claims. we will fast-track the agent orange claims. to meet aggressive targets, the president's budget provides $2.1 million in funding. it is an unprecedented amount of resourceing. the budget will include 145 $9
each and information technology funds to support the on growing -- the ongoing program to develop a paperless claims processing system. this is how we get after breaking that backlog. homelessness, in this rich and powerful nation, roughly 643,000 americans remain homeless high on any given night. we accept that our veterans who have come from every town and village of this great land are a vital part of the national the landscape. we say that in honor in their service, we keep faith with abraham lincoln's, to honor those who have brought on the battle. 177,000 veterans are homeless today. this cannot define the va.
if you wonder what the secretary will be working on over the next couple of years, this is it. we will and a veteran homelessness in the next five years. -- we will city tel veteran homelessness in the next five years. [applause] >> last year, the national cemetery administration performed over 106,000 and torments of veterans and eligible family members, and provided over 152,000 headstones and family markers. this june, we began offering a bronze medallion for use in the civilian cemeteries were veterans are in final rest. we expanded the burial policy resulting in a plan to develop new state and national secretary.
va opened five new national cemeteries at a cost of over $89 million for construction. the 2011 budget seeks $151 million for a cemetery management and maintenance. we are providing a final resting place for the heroes of our nation, and we want those cemeteries to represent the national shrines those heroes deserve. are not the first of october, in 2009, less than one year ago, a roadside bomb targeted a patrol of the nine army rangers. one rancher was blown into a near-by tal, face down.
in the ensuing gunfight, his buddies got him out. all of the members of his patrol were either killed or severely wounded following -- wounded. following insurgencies' -- , a ranger was sent to the camp the v.a. medical center. he was fully comatose in a state doctors described as "vegetative." by their own estimates, the odds for any recovery were slam, but cory, his family, his g-8 therapist, and doctors and nurses never gave up. they worked his lens, massaged his body, using a wide variety
of stimulants -- anything that might stimulate his senses -- anything they could think of to bring him to consciousness. four long days, weeks and months, nothing, but after three months, doctors recognize that he had awakened, regained consciousness through sheer determination on his part, his progress has been agonizingly slow, but miraculously steady. he communicated first with a computer keyboard, but as now slowly regained his ability to speak. 70%ers.e of the a's the va doctors and therapists,
along with the love of his family and is on fighting. to brought back from the darkness -- spirit brought back from the darkness. he returned to shake hands with his buddies. as president obama recounted in a recent speech, korea is just what we expect of a ranger step -- he is just what we expect of a ranger staff officer. when he was told he was when to walk out of here, his response was "no, i am running out of here." [applause] >> he embodies a fight in spirit that has made our military format -- formations great, and made our country what it is.
whatever service you come from, i think all of us can relate to the importance of the words that creedound in the soldier's -- i will always place commission first, i will never accept defeat, i will never quit, i will never leave a fallen comrade. for, simple, declaratory statements. [applause] >>-emphasize the "i" because these are promises that one makes to the rest of the team. on the toughest days, you can count on my doing my part and his 10 deployments cents september 11, -- since september
11, he epitomized that creed. he will not give up. the va will not give up on him, or any other better and that needs us. that promise defines my mission, it is the purpose of the funding of it i just gave to you, and it is the mission of the va's 300,000 employees. will continue to look to the members of the american legion for your advice, your assistance, and your advocacy. thank you very much. they got bless the people that served this wonderful mission, and they got continue to bless you all. thank you, the law. ♪ >> shortly, will be going live to president obama. he is set to talk about the
economy and small business in ohio. that will start at 2:10 p.m. eastern. we have more live programming this afternoon, with a discussion about north korea. it is hosted by the woodrow wilson center. that starts at 3:30 p.m. eastern. this saturday marks the ninth anniversary of the september 11 attacks. we will be live with a panel of aviation officials who will recount their experiences from that day in 2001. it will be live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the president will be speaking about the economy and small business at 2:10 p.m. eastern. until then, in your comments from today, "washington journal tell." movement has largely been a boon for the country, wrote in the case for a
host: first phone call on this, sarah, the key party and political pragmatism. -- the tea party and political pragmatism, at do you think? caller: the tea party is a force to be reckoned with, i am not a member but i do understand them. in a democrat and i can understand their fears, anger, and frustration. host: you are concerned about tea party members actually being
able to win in a general election and have an influence in the senate? caller: i do not know if i am concerned, but i am concerned about anyone being motivated by fear and anger. if you look in the mirror and you are motivated by fear and anger, you are not behind anything that will be prosperous or positive. bringing us a better america where we are not fighting all the time. abraham lincoln even said this. we will falter with them, it will not be an outside force. just look in the mirror. host: all right. independent line, connecticut. caller: a quick comment, it is hard to tell where to party members stand on the issues. if you look at rand hall in kentucky, if you look at the way
editorial. i am as fiscally conservative as you can get, but there is no point in republicans forming a circular firing squad. we need to vote for the people that can vote for the republicans who can win the election and make significant gns in congress. i also believed that the republicans defeated in these primary should about gracefully rather than pursue other venues of trying to get elected. what it will do is one that splitting the republican vote. the only ones to win there are the demrats. host: you would like to see leave some rakowski about out of the race? caller: sometimes you just have to accept a fee -- you have to accept -- the feet --efeat.
host: on this list from "the washington journal" to have a list." west virginia, carl, tea party member, what you think of this call for political pragmatism? caller: i would vote for a party that supported small government. was disappointed in george bush jr., who increased the size of government. i have been to these key party rallies as far as i can see is just a bunch of good american people who are for smaller government, they are about getting government out of the
way and letting the economy boomer. i want to tell you, this is the most left-wing program i have ever seen. host: left wing? are you there? we lost him. clearwater, florida. caller: one year ago these not jobs were bringing a loaded assault rifles to peaceful town hall meetings and now they are burning books in gainesville, florida. this is crystal love -- krystalnacht all over again. host: i do not think you can make the correlation between tea party members and the preacher in florida. caller: b disagree. remember, the definition of fascism is the far right. and i will say, i call them teabaggers. they are dangerous. host: we will move on.
ellen, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. that lady that was just on, she is the wst one going. i think that the tea party is dirty name in it is so long. host: why? caller: the tea party gets a bad name, they are human beings and they have an opinion. host: what you think of "the wall street journal"? republicans need to be pragmatic? if you have a tea party candidate they cannot win in a general election, is it wise to vote for a more moderate republican? caller: yes. host: you do? caller: yes. ost: would you call yourself a moderate? caller: i can, but i do not want to. you know why? there are so many hot heads on the other side.
obama is doing so much for the unions and frankly, i think they will ruin my country. host: in this -- pennsylvania senate race, do you think that pat to me is a moderate? caller: i think that he is very sensible. host: james, democratic line, your next. caller: i think that the bankers are bacng up the republican party. why? they are delirately tying up the money. why? they want to republicans in. why? tax breaks. when you make $200 million per year, you want the tax breaks. so, they are jamming up our society. it will look like the democrats are not doing nothing, that is how it would appear, with
republicans getting in to extend the permanent tax breaks. if you are an independent voter, both independent, don't put the party in the factory that caused the problem in the first place. vote for the green party. host: lance, a tea party line, oklahoma. caller: i think that the editorial has it wrong. i think that the basic conflict in politics is not between conservatism and liberalism, it is between classical liberalism and progressivism. "the wall street journal" fails to recognize that the tea party members start to elect these so- called pragmatts who are completely undermining the entire basis of what the t party is about.
the tea party is about throwing a tea overboard and saying enough, we need an entire new slate, an entire new order of the ages when it comes to american politics, going back to why and where this nation is one of freedom and very limited government. host: hang on the line, let me read from "the wall street journal" this morning on the tea party raised in delaware. host: what do you make specifically about ts race?
did you follow it? caller: i have, and it is a good point to make, because it is the difference between the importance of personality and the importance of policy. because i would much rather have a somewhat mentally unstable pe . >> we are leaving this now to go live to president obama, who is going to be talking about small business at a college in ohio. this is live coverage on c-span. [applause]
>> thank you very much. thank you. thank you so much. thank you very much, everybody. have a seat, have a seat. we have got some business to do today. thank you very much. >> we love you. >> i love you back. before we get started, i would like to acknowledge some outstanding public servants that are here. first of all, someone who i believe is one of the finest governors in this country, ted strickland. [applause]
the lieutenant governor and soon to be junior senator from illinois -- i mean ohio, ray fisher. you get that line all the time about senator from illinois. that would be me. [laughter] the outstanding mayor of cleveland, freight jackson, is here. -- frank jackson, is here. the mayor of pommard, dean of material. someone who is fighting for work and family every day, sherry brown. [applause] and what of the hardest working and fine as members of the house of representatives, dennis kucinich.
[applause] marce a church -- marsh a church. [applause] good afternoon, everybody. did is good to be back in ohio. you know, in the fall of 2008, one of the last rallies of my presidential campaign was right here in the cleveland area. it was a hopeful time. just two days before the election. we knew that if we pulled it off, we would finally have the chance to tackle some big and difficult challenges that have been facing this country for very long time. we also hope for a chance to get
beyond some of the old political divides between democrats and republicans, read states and blue states, that have prevented us from making any progress. although we are proud to be democrats, we are prouder to be americans. we believe, then as now, that no single party has a monopoly on wisdom. which is not to say that the election did not expose the differences between the parties. i ran for president because for much of the last decade a very specific governing philosophy had rained about how america should work. cutting taxes, especially for
millionaires and billionaires. cutting regulations for special interests. cutting trade deals, even if they did not benefit us. cut back on investments in our people, clean energy, research and technology. the idea was that if we just have blind faith in the markets , letting corporations play by their own rules, new leaving everyone else to fend for themselves, america would grow and america would prosper. for a time, this idea gave us the illusion of prosperity. we saw financial firms taking in the effort -- record profits and record bonuses. we saw a housing boom the lead to new homeowners, jobs and
constructions. consumers purchased more condos, bigger cars, better televisions. while all of this was happening , the broader economy was becoming weaker. no one understands that more than the people of ohio. job growth between 2000 and 2008 was slower than it had been in any economic expansion since world war ii. slower than it has been over the last year. the wages and incomes of middle- class families kept falling, while the cost of everything else kept going up. from tuition the health care. folks were forced to put more debt on their credit cards and
borrow against homes that many could not afford to buy in the first place. meanwhile, a failure to pay for two wars and two tax cuts for the wealthy help to turn a record surplus and to a record deficit. i ran for president because i believe that this kind of economy was unsustainable for the middle-class, and for the future of our nation. i ran because i had a different idea about how america was built. [applause] it was idf rooted in my own family story. you see, michele and i are where we are today because even though our families did not have much,
they worked tirelessly, without complaint, so that we might have a better life. my grandfather marched to europe in world war two while my grandmother worked in factories on the home front. i had a single mother that put herself through school. she would wait until dawn to make sure that i got a decent education. michelle still remembers her father heading out to his job as a city worker, long after multiple sclerosis had made it impossible for him to walk without crutches. he always got to work, he just had to get up a little earlier. yes, our family's believed in the american values of self- reliance and individual responsibility, and they instilled those values in their children. but they also believed in a
country that rewards responsibility. a country that rewards hard work. a country built on the promise of opportunity and upward mobility. they believed in an america that gave my grandfather the chance to go to college because of the gi bill. and america the gave my grandparents a chance to purchase a home because of the federal housing authority. giving their children and grandchildren the chance to fulfill dreams thanks to college loans and college scholarships. it was an america where you did not buy things that you could not afford, where we did not just think about today, we thought about tomorrow. an america that took pride in the goods that we made, not just the things that we consume.
an america where a rising tide really lifted all boats. from the ceo of the company to the man on the assembly line. that is the america that i believe in. that is the america that i believe in. [applause] that is what led me to work in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant on the south side of chicago as a community organizer. it is what led me to fight for factory workers and manufacturing plants that were closing across illinois when i was senator. it is what led me to run for president. i do not believe that we can have a strong and growing economy without a strong and growing middle class. [applause]
now, much has happened since that election. the flawed policies and economic weaknesses of the previous decade culminated in a financial crisis and the worst recession of our lifetimes. my hope was that the crisis would cause everyone, democrats and republicans, to pull together, tackling our problems in a frugal -- from away. some republicans thought it was smart to let the democrats solve the mess. others believe the principle the government should not attempt to solve the markets, even when they're broken. with the nation losing nearly
800,000 jobs the month that i was sworn into office, my most urgent task was to stop a financial meltdown and prevent this recession from becoming a second impression. [applause] in ohio you have done that. the economy is growing again. the financial markets have stabilized. the private sector has created jobs for the last eight months in a row. [applause] there are roughly 3 million americans working today because of the economic plan that we put into place. but the truth is that progress has been painfully slow.
millions of jobs were lost before our policies even had the chance to take effect. we lost 4 million jobs in the six months before i took office. it was a hole that was so deep, even though we have added jobs, millions of americans remain unemployed. hundreds of thousands of families have lost their homes. millions more can barely pay the mortgage. the middle class is still treading water. those aspiring to reach the middle class are doing everything that they can to keep from drowning. meanwhile, some of the very steps that were necessary to save the economy, like temporarily supporting the banks and auto industry, said the perception that washington is still ignoring the middle class
to favor special interests. people are frustrated, angry, and anxious about the future. i understand that. i also understand that in a political campaign, the easiest thing for the other party to do is to ride the fear and anger on to election day. that is what is happening right now. a few weeks ago, the republican leader of the house came to cleveland and offered his party's answer to our economic challenges. it would be one thing if he had admitted his party's mistakes during the eight years that they were in power. they had gone off for a while, meditated, come back and offered a credible approach to solving our country's problems. but that is not what happened.
there were no new policies from mr. john boehner. there were no new ideas. just the same ideas that they had tried during the decades they were in power. the same philosophies that led to this mess in the first place. cut taxes for millionaires and corporations. instead of coming together like past generations to build a better country for children and grandchildren, their argument is that we should let insurance companies go back to denying care for folks that are sick, let credit-card companies go back to raising rates without any reason. instead of setting this sights higher, they are asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth and eroded the
competitiveness, as well as a shrinking middle class. cleveland, that is not the america that i know. that is not the america that we believed in. [applause] a lot has changed since i came here in the final days of the last election, but what has not changed is the choice facing this country. it is still fear bursas hope, the past verses the future. it is still a choice between sliding backwards and moving forwards. that is what this election is about and it is the choice that she will face in november. [applause]
we have a different vision for the future. i have never believed that government holds the answers to all of our problems. i never thought that the government's role was to create jobs or prosperity. i believe that it is that drive and ingenuity of our small businesses, skill and ingenuity of our workers, making us the wealthiest nation on earth. i believe that it is the private sector that must be the main engine for recovery. i believe that government should be lean, efficient, i believe that the government should be people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and families so long as those choices do not hurt others. [applause]
but, in the words of the first republican presidents, abraham lincoln, i believe that the government should be able to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. [applause] it means making the long term investments that individuals and corporations cannot make on their own. investments in clean energy and basic research, technology and infrastructure. [applause] that means making sure the corporations live up to their responsibility to treat consumers fairly, playing by the same rules as everyone else. [applause] it is their responsibility to
look out for the workers as well as shareholders, creating jobs here at home. that means providing a hand up to middle-class families. if they work hard and meet their responsibilities, they can afford to raise their children, send them to college, see a doctor when they get sick, retire with dignity and respect. [applause] that is what democrats believe in. a vibrant, free-market, one that works for everyone. [applause] that is our vision for a stronger economy and a growing middle class. that is the difference between what we and republicans in
congress are offering the american people right now. let me give you a few specific examples of our different approaches. this week i've proposed additional steps to grow the economy and help businesses spur the economy. one of the key is to job creation is the encouragement of companies to invest more in the united states. for years our tax code has given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage jobs and profits in other countries. i want to change that. i want to change that. [applause] instead of tax loopholes that incentivize investments in overseas jobs, i am proposing a more generous, permanent extension of the credit goes to
companies for the research and innovation that they do right here in of the united states of america. i am proposing that all american businesses should be allowed to write off all of the investments they make in 2011. this will help small businesses upgrade plants and equipment, encouraging large corporations to put their profits to work in places like cleveland and toledo. for most of you, i bet this just seems live common sense. [laughter] not to mr. boehner and his allies. for years, republicans have fought -- fought to keep these loopholes opened. when he was here in cleveland
that he attacked us for closing some of these loopholes, using the money to help states like ohio keep hundreds of thousands of teachers, cops, and firefighters on the job. mr. boehner the script -- dismiss these ideas, the people that patrol our streets and rush into burning buildings, as government jobs. jobs that i guess we thought were not worth saving. i could not disagree more. teachers, firefighters, police officers, they are part of what keeps america strong.
in ohio if we are going to give tax breaks to companies, they should go the ones that create jobs in america. not ones that create jobs overseas. that is one difference between the democratic position and the republican position. that is what this is all about. let me give you another example. we want to put more americans back to work rebuilding america. our roads, railways, runways. when the housing sector collapsed and the recession hit, one out of every four jobs lost were in the construction industry. that is part of why our economic plan invested in badly needed infrastructure projects. not just roads and bridges, but
expanded high-speed railroad. leading to good, thousands of private-sector jobs. mr. boehner and the republicans in congress said no to these problems -- projects. they fought them tooth and nnai. then trying to take credit, always a sight to see. there are still thousands of miles left to improve. engineers, economists, governors, mayors of every political stripe, believe that if we want to compete in this global economy we need to rebuild this vital infrastructure. there is no reason that europe for china should have the
fastest airplanes or the most modern airports. we want to put america to work building them right here in america. [applause] so, this week i proposed a six year infrastructure plan that would start putting americans to work right away. despite the fact that this has traditionally been an issue with bipartisan support, mr. owner has so far said no to infrastructure. that is bad for america. that is what this election is all about. i will give you one final examples of the differences between us and the republicans, on the issue of tax cuts.
as passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. for everyone. by the way, this was by design. when these were passed in 2001 and 2003, they did not want everyone to know what it would do to our deficit. so, they pretended like they would end, even though now they say they do not. now, i believe that we are to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. [applause] for the middle class, permanent. these families saw their wages and income flat line over the last decade. you deserve a break.
and because folks in the middle class are more likely to spend their tax cuts on basic necessities, it strengthens the economy as a whole. the republican leader of the house does not want to stop there. he and his party believe that we should also give a permanent tax cut to the wealthiest 2% of americans. with all of the other budgetary pressures that we have, with all of the republican talk about wanting to strengthen the deficit, they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next 10 years to give us tax cuts of about $100,000 each to folks that are already millionaires. keep in mind, wealthy americans
are just about the only folks that saw in cannes rise when republicans were in charge. being able to vote for those who were less likely to spend the money, that is why economists did not think that tax rates would do much to boost the economy. we should not hold middle-class tax cuts. [applause] we are ready this week, if they want, to give tax cuts to every american making $250,000 or less.
for any income over this amount, the factory would just go back to what they were under president clinton. this is not to punish folks that were better off. it is because we cannot afford the price tag. [applause] for those that claim that our approach would be bad for growth and small businesses, let me remind you that with that those tax rates in place.
[applause] in fact, if the republican leadership in congress really wants to help small businesses, they will stop using legislative maneuvers to block up or down votes on small did -- small business job bills that are before the senate right now. this bill would do two things. cutting taxes for small businesses, making loans more available for small businesses. [applause] it is completely paid for, will not add to the deficit, and it was written by democrats and republicans. yet the other party continues to block this bill. a delay the small business owners have actually said is
leading them to put off hiring. look, i recognize that most of the republicans in congress have said no to every policy i have proposed since taking office. i realize in some cases that there are genuine philosophical defenses. on issues like this one, tax cuts for small businesses, supported by the chamber of commerce, the only reason they're holding this up is politics, pure and simple. [applause] they are making the same calculation they made just before my inauguration. if i fail, they win.
well, they might think that this will get them to where they want to go in november, but it will not get our country going where it needs to go in the long run. [applause] it will not get us there. it will not get us there. [applause] it won't get us there. [applause] so, that is the choice, ohio. do we return to the same failed policies that ran our economy into a ditch?
or do we keep moving forward with policies that are slowly killing us off? [applause] do we settle for a slow decline? or do we reach for an america with a growing economy and a flagging middle class -- thriving middle-class? that is the america that i see. we might not be there yet, but we know where this country needs to go. we see a future where we invest in american innovation and american ingenuity. where we export more goods, creating more jobs at home. making it easier to start a business, and inventions. where we build a home run clean energy industry. i do not want to see new solar panels, electra cars, or advanced batteries manufactured in europe or asia. i want to see them made right
here in the u.s.a. by american workers. [applause] we see an america where every citizen has the skills and training to compete with any worker in the world. that is why we have set a goal to once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. that is why we are revitalizing community colleges like this one. [applause] that is why we are reforming the education system based on what works for the children, not what perpetuates the status quo.
[applause] we see an america where a growing middle class is the beating heart of a growing economy. it is why i have kept my campaign promise, engaging a middle-class tax cut to 95% of working americans. that is why we passed health insurance reform that stops insurance companies from jacking up your premiums at will, denying coverage because you get sick. [applause] that is why we passed financial reform with reform that would stop credit card companies and mortgage lenders from taking advantage of taxpayers and consumers. that is why we are trying to make it easier for workers to prepare for retirement.
as long as i am president, no one will take the retirement savings of a generation of americans and handed over to wall street. not on my watch. that is why we are fighting to extend the child tax credit and make permanent our tax credit, if we do it will mean $10,000 in tuition relief for each child going through four years of college. i do not want any parent to not send their kids, in good times are bad, to college because they cannot afford. finally, we see an america where we refuse to pass on the debt that we inherited to the next generation.
we have heard a lot of moralizing on the other side about this. government spending and debt. along with tax cuts for the wealthy, the other party's main economic proposal is that they will stop government spending. it is right to be concerned about the long-term investments. if we do not get a handle on it soon, it could endanger our people. at a time when folks are tightening their belts at home, i can understand why a lot of americans feel it is time for government to show some discipline. but let's look at the facts. when these same republicans, including mr. boehner, were in charge, the number of earmarks
went up, not down. these same republicans turned a record surplus into a record deficit. when i walked in, wrapped in a nice bow was a $1.30 trillion deficit right there on my doorstep. just this year, the same republicans voted against a bipartisan commission that they themselves proposed. when you ask them, what programs would you actually cut? they do not have an answer.
that is not fiscal responsibility. that is not a serious plan to govern. i will be honest, i refuse to cut back on investments that will grow the economy in the future. investments in clean energy, technology. i do not want to cut those things. [applause] that is because economic growth is the single best way to bring down the deficit and we need these investments to grow. i am absolutely committed to fiscal responsibility, which is why i have already proposed freezing spending on national security for the next three years. [applause] once the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work, i will spend the next year making
the tough choices necessary to further reduce the deficit and lower the debt. whether i get help from the other side are not. [applause] of course, reducing the deficit will not be easy. making up for the 8 million lost jobs caused by this recession will not happen overnight. not everything we have done over the last two years has worked as quickly as we had hoped. and i am keenly aware that not all of our policies have been popular. so, no, our job is not easy. but you did not elect me to do what was easy. you did not elect me to just read the polls and figure out how to keep myself in office.
you did not elect me to avoid big problems. you elected me to odo what was right. as long as i am president, that is exactly what i intend to do. [applause] [applause] this country is emerging from an incredibly difficult. in its history. an era of irresponsibility that stretch from wall street to washington and had a devastating effect on a lot of people.
we have started to turn the corner on that. but part of moving forward is returning to the time-honored values that built this country. hard work and self-reliance. responsibility for ourselves. but also responsibility for one another. it is about moving from an attitude that says -- what is in it for me? moving to an attitude that says -- what is best for america? what is best for all of our workers? what is best for all of our businesses? what is best for all of our children? [applause] these values are not democratic or republican. they are not conservative or liberal values. they are american values.
as democrats we take pride in what our party has accomplished over the last century. social security and the minimum wage. the gi bill thomas of rights, workers' rights and women's rights. [applause] we also recognize that throughout our history there has been a room -- a noble republican vision as well of what this country can be. there is the vision of abraham lincoln, who set up the first land grant college, launched the transcontinental railroad. the vision of teddy roosevelt, who used the power of government to break up monopolies. the vision of dwight eisenhower, who helped to build in turn -- interstate highway system. yes, the vision of ronald reagan, despite the version of government, was willing to help save social security for future
generations. working with democrats. [applause] these were serious leaders for serious times. they were great politicians, but they did not spend all their time playing games and scoring points. they did not pray on the fears of people. they made mistakes. they did what they thought was in the best interest of the country and the people. that is what the american people expect of us today. democrat, independent, and republican. that is the debate that they deserve. that is the leadership. i know that folks are worried about the future. i know that there is still a lot of hurt out there.
when times are tough, i know that it can be tempting to give into cynicism, fear, and out. to just settle our sights a little bit lower. settle for something a little bit less. but that is not who we are, ohio. those are not the values that built this country. we are here today because, in the worst of times, the people that came before us brought out the best in america. because our parents and grandparents, great grandparents, were willing to work, sacrificing for us. they were willing to take great risks and face great hardships, reaching for a future that would give us the chance of a better life. they knew that this country was greater than the sum of its parts.
but america is not about the ambitions of one individual, but the aspirations of an entire people. that is who we are. that is our legacy, and i am convinced that if we are willing to summon those values today, choosing hope over fear, choosing the future over the past, coming together once more around a great project of national renewal, we will restore the economy and rebuild çthe middleç class, reclaimine american dream for the next generation. thank you, god bless you, and god bless you united states of america o. [applause] ♪
remarks from ohio this afternoon, laying out his case to make tax cuts for the middle class permanent. he also responded to john boehner this afternoon, who spoke in ohio last week, who called for the president to fire his economic team. today the congressman calls for a freeze on tax rates, including the bush tax cuts for the rich. he also proposed that the u.s. government cut spending to 2008 levels, before the federal corporate bailouts and the economic stimulus plan. ♪
♪ >> president george w. bush's tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. president obama has said that he wants to extend the tax cuts for families making $250,000 per year, letting them expire for families earning more. if nothing is done, families at every income level face tax increases next year. if you make less than $10,000, your increase will be $70 on average, here is a look at the
rest. we will have more from president obama on friday when he hosts a news conference from the white house on friday that even see live here on c-span. there is more live programming for you here today with a discussion about north korea posted at the woodrow wilson center. saturday marks the ninth anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attacks. we will be live with a discussion featuring aviation officials were counting live their experiences from that day. from dallas, texas, it will begin at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> the local content vehicle of c-span, traveling the country this summer, visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most hotly contested districts leading up to the
midterm elections. >> how are you? nice to see you. how're you doing? are you from delaware county? >> prospect park. >> ok, hope they will vote for me in november. >> nice to see you again. [laughter] >> this is lawyers room. [laughter] >> candidates in the seventh district, the democrat is bright and land, an up-and-coming prosecutor in the city of philadelphia, an army ranger who
served in iraq. he was very ambitious, he was going to run for congress in 2006, just after he retired from the navy as an admiral, deciding to come back to his home town in the district, where he had not lived for many years, and run for congress. he did such a phenomenal job fund raising that rohm emmanuel and other party elders told him to go way, kid. we have got someone with a lot of money. plus he was an admiral, so he's like a macho democrat, he is perfect for this district. lance was one of those guys that wanted to have a future in the party. he ran for the state house and has been there for a couple of terms. he was the u.s. prosecutor under bush, u.s. attorney for
>> there was not enough focus on jobs, particularly jobs here. >> little bit about the seventh district -- is unique in that it has been a republican stronghold since the civil war. delaware county is the main county in the southern congressional district, right outside the city of philadelphia. it is near the suburbs and
includes ethnically diverse, old, port towns and the main line, home of the blue bloods and the philadelphia story and grace kelly. republicans still have registration adds in the district, but it is shrinking quite a bit. dollar county in particular, which is 70% of the district has been voting for democrats in state-wide races for a long time now. the current representative from the district is joe sestak who was running for the district was the first democrat in 26 years to have one of election there. the democrat who preceded him was from the watergate era. it took watergate to get another democrat in there. >> it really does encapsulate all the dynamics we are seeing
in these competitive districts. when you add to that the fact that these are too good candidates, that makes it really competitive. when you run for congress in the philadelphia area, these races are won and lost on television. this is an expensive place to run trade a cost about half a million dollars a week to be on the air. this could come down to who has the more compelling narrative to put on tv and who has the money to put it into people's homes on tv. >> a look now at the political and issue environment going into the 2010 midterm elections from this morning's "washington journal." peter wehner is the former speechwriter for president bush. he is not a senior fellow for the ethics and policy center. he appeared to talk about campaign 2010. let us talk about the repubcan message.
what is it, wouldou change some of it? guest: the primary message is we are going to stop what the president and democratic congress is doing. there is a huge popular uprising in the country resisting what obama is doing on spending, on health ce, taxes. i think the republican party is doing what it ought to do, be the opposition party. that is the first thing in need to do. then it needs to put forward a series of proposals on what it would do, if and when it gets control of congress. i think it will. overall, we are doing an effective job, and we are set up for a big gains in november. ho: put forth proposals when and if they are put forward. at what point do you put forward those proposals? guest: republican leaders will put something forward and delegates to the american
contract. you hear lots of people complaining, why don't we have a contract? it worked well in 1994. the reality is, the contract that newt gingrich put out was just before september, just before the election. republicans could do that again that is fine. the contract is a good idea. a series of proposals, some of which we procedural, some were substantive. it is different when you govern. you need specific pieces of legislation. they are going to put something forward. i hope it will be go and substantive. i tend to be on the side of those who want to say more rather than less. for example, paul ryan, a bright, rising star in the republican party in the house, calling it the road map for america. some of the republican
leadership is skittish. they're feeling is the wind is so strong and our bac we do not want to mess anything up where we get into a debate and we are pressed on the particular. but i think he is probably right -- it a this calculationatio -- miscalculation that democrats do not really have a proposal? guest: i do not think s part of it is philosophical. you ought to be able to run on the ideas you have and be confident, unapologetic in defending them. i think there is also something to be said, once you gain power, that you have some sort of referendum on your proposals. when you go in, you are able to say, we wanted these ideas, now
we are going to implement them. i do not know if it is a part -- in is calculation on the part of republican leadership. frankly, it is not necessary -- brought on by in one specific on this when he ran, the supply- side agenda. i think there is good policy. host: john boehner put forward a proposal on whato do with the economy, trying to counter the president in ohio today. he proposes a two-year freeze on thaksin extensions. cutting government allows to that of 2008. what do you make of his proposal and his timing on this? guest: the timing is right. president obama will be
speaking and the republicans want to have a counter never dish. -- narrative. i think that is a good starting place, actually. there is a big debate -- as you had with mr. ip in the last segment -- whether or not to keep the tax structure in place or whether you want to raise taxes on high-income individuals. republicans are against it. democrats are for increasing the tax. it is a good debate to have but i think republicans will win on substance. boehner did the right thing, and over all, he has been doing well republicans have bn -- has been doing well. republicans have been dealt a rrific and. host: in "the washington post"
he is right, newt gingrich is a n enormously large personality. he is very much as possible to the takeover in 1994. secondly, this election will be more ideologically-driven, even more than 1994. third, president obama. he is much more rigid and eileen -- ideological than president clinton. his ability and inclination, disposition to tax the center is much more likely than clinton. for those reasons, once the republican takeover the hse -- which i expect them to do, and the senate -- there will be a lot of gridlock. it will be an intense debate that will set of the 2012 elections. host: kathleen parker writes --
given what you just said, do the republicans need a new leader in the house? guest: i do not thk so. if the republicans won 50, 60 seats, it is not likely that they would get rid of boehner. in a broader sense, obama is almost radioactive, politically, now. democrats do not want to be seen with him. democrats are running ads against him. if obama goes into ohio and
criticizesohn boehner, i think she is right, it is a boon for him. the agenda he is proposing is going to help boehner become speaker of the house. host: next phone call. ron on the republican line. caller: i was watching c-an 3 yesterday. i heard the republicans try to push their 2003 tax cut through. they guaranteed us that they would have jobs, that they would create 2 million jobs. by the end of the decade, they would see the best economy that we could ever see. they lied. i listened to everything. democrats said everything that
would happen with their tax cuts happened. i do not know how they can go back to the george bush tax cuts, and paid for -- unpaid for. if you want to do something, you need to pay for it, ok? if i am going to give $1 trillion to a different country, i would rather give it to my country and see it prosper. understand terrorism, i am a vet, i love the veterans administration, i love what they do for me. my country doe everything for me that i deserve to have. host: was this from 2003 or 2001? this was from 2003,
but their preference 2001. they said it would have been, but two yrs later, scowled what the caller is referring to is if you go to c- span.org we pulled portions of the debate in 2001 and 2003 over the bush tax cuts. if you want to watch that debate, go tour video library. peter winter -- peter winner -- g tehe said republicans lie. in general, i think you should not use the word "lie." joe biden said we would create
50000 jobs during the recovery. would not gotten everything. -- we have not gotten anything. that is one. secondly, to hear someone complained about fiscal irsponsibility -- if not paying for things -- given that we have the most fiscally irresponsible president in american history, perhaps, is slightly comical. he mentioned the prescription drug plan. the reality is, the democrats wanted all plan that was double the cost of what a bush plan would have been. the bush plan came in one-third under cost, which is almost unprecedented. the other thing is that we had 52 months of economic growth during the bush years, which was a record. we created 8 million new jobs. i cannot imagine, i did not see
the tape, but i am not sure anyone in 2001 or 2003 was able to say what the job growth would be by 2010. the argument was lower taxes would help the economy and job growth, and the record shows that assertion. host: buffalo, new york. call: i would like to know what the tax cuts have done that we should continue them in the last 10 years? make so much money. the more people they layof the higher their income goes. i have not figured out why we would do this. guest: the record does not support that. we had 52 months of economic growth. bear in mind, just f context, that when bush came into office the economy was sputtering, and
within four months it was in recession. in such -- he pushed tax cuts in 2000 at 1 and 2003. the two thousand three were more effective. you have 8 million jobs that were created. the deficit in 2007 was 1.2% of gdp, which is far below the average of the last 40 years. you had an economic crisis i 2008, which knocked everything in half, and it was a complicated set of reaso for why that happened. host: "the the new york times front page -- host: put on your speech writer hat. he will go out today and make the case for why we should let
the bush -- the bush tax cuts expire. effective? guest: no, it should not be. host: the lst caller was a republican. they said why should -- what have the tax cuts done? guest: roughly, republicans seem to be for tax cuts, and democrats seem to be for tax increases. this debate has helped republicans, not hurt them. for presidentbama to now push for increasing taxes in a sputtering economy, where we are actually decelerating, iis just economically not sought.
it is even can see in. even they argue that when they have an economy like this, you did not raise taxes. the argument about class warfare does not work. bill clinton understood that. he modified the message. democrats benefited from it. the larger picture here is that these speeches optics. people are very concerned about the direction. he can talk all he wants. people are not listening. there is a contrast between what obama asserts, and what they see with their own eyes. host: does that argument apply to republicans -- people are not listening?
guest: we experienced the same thing in iraq. the situation was going very badly in 2006. people proposed series of speeches -- you have to say this, you have to say that -- those are fine. in the end, the argument was we did not have a communication problem, we had effect on the ground problem in iraq. they have a fact on the ground problem economically. richard cohen said he was a shrinking president. he needed to fire his speechwriters. he has good speech writers. that is not the problem. the problem is resolved. as long as that is the case, that will be a problem. the public is listening to reblicans. the brand of the republican party is still hurt. in terms of how people are voting, and we have seen this
already in the races in virginia, new jersey, and massachusetts, they are voting in large number for republicans, and they will in november. host: st. louis, donna, on the republican line. caller: i get most of my information from c-span, not the corporate-controlled media. the republicans -- if the republicans cannot afford to be honest about their message. if they were honest about their message, they would say we still support the privatization of medicare and social security, constant wars for the military industrial complex, the regulations for the financial institutions that almost caused the meltdown, tax cuts for the rich, shipping jobs overseas, where they lose more than --
less than $1 an hour, and because of that we have lost millions which is why our deficits are zooming. host: have you ever voted for a republican? caller: gerald ford, ronald reagan, pat buchanan, i am what you call an independent voter. 8 -- guest: she said republicans could not be elected dogcatcher. they will not be a elected dogcatcher. secondly, there was an internal contradiction. she attacked republicans on the entitlement issue, and privatizing and so forth. then, she complained about the deficits.
the reality is we have an entitlement crisis in america. it is a huge problem. it is the driving force of the debt and the dicit, which is a massive problem now with the economy. we will eventually nd to get this under control. that means testing entitlent programs, which means you do entitlements based on what people make, and if you make more money, you get less. there are a whole series of things you can do with social security rates. you cannot complain about the deficit, the debt on the one hand, and then castigate republicans or anyone else who wants to reform bob entitlement assist -- wants to reform the entitlement system. it is not sustainable and obama himself says that.
host: let me read this from one of our viewers. was it rise for john boehner to raise money for rand paul's primary opponent? how does he harness the energy of the tea party moment when he has not endorsed some of those candidates? guest: is a good question. i am not sure, if he becomes speaker of the house that it will be held against him that he intervened in this race. it is funny because rand paul is running for the senate, and john boehner is in the house. there is an interesting debate, which is the force, the power, the energy, and the influence that the tea party will have on the republican party if a takeover one or both branches of congress. i think it will be considerable. my own preference was actually
theerson that ran against rand paul would win. rand paul was a libertarian, where least he was before he got the nomination. i not a libertarian, and i think some of what he said in the past is problematic. john boehner, as speaker of the house, will be fine and there will not be any resentment. host: what was your reaction to the headline -- gut: i do not like it. if you are defeated, and you run as a republican or a democrat, a message is sent. charlie crist in florida did the same thing.
he was beaten by a terrific, and exciting candidate. he picked up his marbles, and went home, and decided to run as an independent or a defect of democrat. they need to figure out what to do in life if they are voted out of office. host: albuquerque, new mexico -- joe, the republican line. caller: i wasalling up to say that congress and president obama are supposed to be working for the u.s. citizens. in that case, if obama in forces the immigration laws -- enforces the immigration laws to the most of his ability, tt would mean millions of jobs for
u.s. citizens for him and coress -- who him and congress are supposed to beat representing. host: let's talk about immigration as an issue in campaign 2010. do you see it resurfacing as a sleeper issue? guest: it is interesting. normally, it does not have that much bearing on an election. it might have more bearing this time because of the arizona law and the obama justice department suit in arizona over it. that gave the issue a specific nature and target. pele can now react to it. in places like arizona, and some of the borr states, it will matter more broadly, it is a tricky debate. republicans, in the short term, have benefited from it. there is a lot of concern about
illegal immigration. they need to be careful that the rhetoric does not get out of control and that republicans or conservatives are not viewed as anti-immigration, as opposed to anti-illegal immigration. you need to be careful. ronald reagan was a great champion of hispanics and immigration. it was very much consistent with his view of the world and america. sometimes, i worry that republicans in their eagerness to stop the legal limit the -- immigration, are sending a message that ultimately, i am not comfortable with. politically, hispanics are a growing demographic in the country. republicans need to win them if they want to hold office. host: date, the democratic line in new hampshire. good morning.
caller: it is dan. in 2000,hen bush comes to power, he was handed a budget surplus, and everybody athe time thought the surplus was a bad idea, althoh we still have a $5 trillion debt. what would have happened, instead of giving it away, if he would get paid the debt off? the second issue with the speaker is he mentioned obama as the most prolific spender. he was elected in 2008. his first budget -- 2009 was still bullish's budget. 2010 was the first budget that president obama past. out of the stimulus, one-third went to tax cuts, and almost a third has not been spent yet, so
how is he the most prolific spender? guest: a couple of things. i will expand on the issue of the surplus that bush inherited. it was because of the.com surge that you had in the '90s. the economy was -- in the 1990's. the economy was slowing down. we began a recession for months after he was there. after september 11, the economy slowed down. the tax cuts, i think, heed the economy grow. by 2007, it had a situation where the budget deficit was just over 1% of the gdp, which was quite low. some economists were predicting we would have a surplus again. these things are complicated. there is a tendency to try to
reduce them by republicans, democrats, libertarians, because they are for or against tax cuts, to try and to invest enormous power in these things. everything that goes good or bad is it -- is attached to these specific policies. public policy is more complicated than that. tax cuts were in certain situations, and better in other times. you have to figure out what the problems are given economic conditions and so forth. in terms >> you can see the rest of this on c-span.org. u.s. diplomats will discuss the impact regarding nuclear -- regarding north korea's's nuclear program. now, a discussion on how well the u.s. can know what is going on inside the country. >> before i introduce our
speakers, let me take a moment to introduce the wilson center for those of you who have not been here before and for those of you watching offsite. the woodrow wilson international center for scholars is the nation's official memorial to president woodrow wilson. unlike other presidential memorials on the mall, the wilson center seeks to honor president wilson's role as a scholar as well as his role as a president by inviting world- class scholars to do policy- related research here in washington. we pride ourselves on introducing new and fresh perspectives, often from scholars based outside the beltway to policy debates here in washington. today's event was organized by the asia program which provides a forum for bringing a historic depth and contemporary understanding of asia to the nation's capital. the director is robert hathaway who is here with us today.
the northponsored by korea at international documentation program college falls under the history and public policy program whose director is also i believe here today. our first speaker is james person, a project coordinator of the mkidp. by way of introducing the projects, you will have some idea of the outstanding job james does for the center and the production of knowledge on north korea. the north korea international documentation program collects the document on north korea from past and present allies, translates those documents, collates them, and makes them freely available to historians and policymakers. it also coordinate's oral history where foreign diplomats
dealing with north korea shed light on past events so that we may better understand north korea today. it is a truly unique and outstanding project and i encourage you all to familiarize yourselves with it. james is currently completing a ph.d. at george washington university, focusing on the origins and evolution of north korea's ideology between 1953 and 1967. our next speaker is well known in the world of policymakers to work on north korea. he spent over 30 years in the intelligence community working almost exclusively on dprk issues. he was the chief of the northeast division leader of the intelligence department research and intelligence adviser to the chief u.s. negotiators and therefore involved in all key u.s.-dprk communications.
he was the deputy adviser to the korean peninsula organization from 2002-2007. he is currently a visit -- a visiting scholar at stanford. our next speaker is an expert on the leadership of north korea and is the author of what is often considered to be the biography of kim il-sung. he is the professor emeritus at the university of hawaii where he was the director of the center for korean studies between 1972-1995. he has held a number of academic positions in northeast asia, namely that song national university in korea.
we are also extremely proud that in 1985, he was a visiting scholar here at the woodrow wilson center, although back then, we were based across the mall in the castle. finally, we will hear from a professor who had a class until just after 3:00 and he will becoming a little late. i will introduce a now in any case. he is an associate professor and director of korea studies at johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. he has held positions at cornell, sold national university, mit and the university of california irvine. he is a former recipient of a fulbright pace faculty research grant and was a fellow at both
the macarthur foundation and the east-west center. if you could join me in welcoming our speakers today. [applause] i am sure we are all eager to hear what they have to say, so i will pass the floor over to james. >> thank you. the north korean international documentation organization is happy to co-sponsor this event. really all credit goes to bryce. i just returned on monday from a two-month trip to seoul, korea was gathering more documents and in my absence, he did yeoman's job in organizing this panel. at the risk of sounding overeat -- at the risk of sounding overly didactic, i would like to start by asking too simple but important epistemological
questions. first, how do we know what we think we know about north korea? second, how is knowledge about north korea produced? it is important to approach a subject of inquiry with a healthy dose of skepticism. most analysts do when they, and on other countries, but it seems this skepticism at times rarely extends to analysis on north korea. it is arguably one of the most secretive nations in the world. arguably the most secretive nation. our ability to obtain reliable information on north korea remains limited because of over six decades of diplomatic non- recognition of north korea. yet, there's no shortage of
opinions and no shortage of experts on north korea. with the emergence of new materials from the archives of north korea's former communist allies we can actually get to reexamine what we think we know about north korea. when looking at these materials, and these materials, we are now getting north korea materials, but they come largely from chinese, russian, czech, polish, albanian, romanian archives. what becomes clear is what we think we know about north korea has been influenced by such thing as the cold war enmity between the two koreas, the enmity between the united states and north korea.
there are other influences, such as what we think we know about north korea often reflects the official north korean position on things. surprisingly kahlo we think we know about north korea also reflects -- surprisingly what we know about north korea also reflects imperial japanese philosophy. anyone who has read a history of north korea knows kim il-sung's position in north korea was largely unassailable from the late 1950's, after he are fully exploited factional rivalries to consolidate his own position. he purged these factions finally andhe late 1950's eliminated outside influence in
the party. what we're finding in these documents is this is not in a highly accurate. you did not really have a factional rivalry in the korean workers' party through the 1950's. you had policy debate over development strategies. after three years of ongoing debates and discussions about which development strategy to adopt, kim il-sung simply declared the people who were supporting this alternative development strategy where factional lists and purge them, a maoist technique. so these became ontological realities only after kim il- sung call them factional list. there were no groupings' strong of to create these actions beforehand. this is something widely known,
we all love their work -- we have all done there are factions in -- there were factions in north korea. we have had to go back and completely reexamine what we think we know about north korea. this is one historical episode. there are other cases where are misunderstandings of north korea have an effect at our ability to formulate effective policies. today, i want to focus on two cases where we need to reexamine what we think we know about the north. both of these cases, policies are being formulated based on misconceptions. the first is in viewing china as a country with tremendous influence or leverage over north korea. the second and going to examine today is this assumption that north korean leaders seek reform
and integration into the international system. there is one thing that is central to both of these subjects. that is sovereignty. north korea -- how they jealously guard its sovereign right of us. perhaps more so than any other nation on earth. -- its sovereign prerogatives. the reason this north korean leaders see the world filtered through the lens of the japanese colonial experience. this is important to understand. they see the system that existed in east asia through the end of the 19th century as the reason
thackeray was unable to defend its sovereignty from japan in 1910, 100 years ago last week. the north koreans saw as tributary system as the downfall of the dynasty. they are determined to prevent north korea from ever repeating something like that again. therefore, whenever an ally, for example, attempts to influence north korean policy, they immediately react negatively, suggesting this country is attempting to meddle in their internal affairs.
at the same time, they are reluctant to become integrated into e-systems -- into any systems because they are afraid of jeopardize in their sovereignty and i will get into that in more detail in amylin. first, let's look at this alliance. many people confuse influence -- they confuse access with influence. there is no doubt china has more access than any country to north korea, but this does not translate to leverage over the north. the reason for this is that the north truly does not trust china. this has been a very, very rocky relationship throughout the 60 years, starting with the korean war. i've spoken about this year
before. the chinese and at times acted in a manner the north koreans perceived as an attempt to reassert their traditional hegemony over korea. during the korean war, yet a foreign military apparatus controlling field operations. they took control of the fighting. this made kim il-sung very uncomfortable. there were also personal rivalries and animosities between kim il-sung and the head of the chinese people's volunteers. relations were quite shaky amelia after the korean war. you see this in a lot of the documents we are obtaining where the soviets were expressing concern that the relationship between china and north korea was not very
friendly and the chinese were intentionally avoiding north koreans at diplomatic receptions. with the nephew years of the end of the korean war, china and the soviet union directly interfered in an internal party matter following the august planning of the korean workers' party central committee. no question about it, they directly battled in the internal party affairs. chemical son would refer to this years and years later -- chemical some would refer to this years and years later -- kim il-sung would refer to this later. it would refer to chinese interventionist policies and a big power chauvinism. during the revolution, we had
china and meddling in internal party affairs and there were even disputes, armed clashes along the border in the vicinity of [inaudible] mountain. the chinese oppose the succession of kim jong il. the north koreans have very good reasons not to trust china completely. and to be concerned about china reasserting their traditional hegemony over the korean peninsula. for that reason, i'm surprised we are asking china to become so involved -- we asked china to do our dirty work by bringing the north koreans back to the six
party talks. we asked the chinese to become more and more involved in helping us approach the north. what we are essentially doing is ask the chinese to do what the north koreans have most resented over the past few decades. given this shaky relationship over the last six decades, i'm surprised -- i was amazed -- that was reading reports of a recent trip to china that kim jong-il made and everybody matter-of-factly said he is going to secure china's blessing for the succession of this third son. a country that so jealously guards their sovereign prerogatives would never go to another country -- this is
something cho sun leaders had done when the secretary system existed. but it is unconscionable to think north korea today would request the blessing of china, especially when kim jong il's succession was actually criticized by the chinese in 1980. another thing we need to be more mindful of when formulating policy or coming up with policy is this idea that we need to be more mindful of the history of past attempts to open up north korea or to get north korea to
integrate into international systems. there have been a number of task reports recently suggesting we can engage north korea and engage north korea economically and north korea will likely open like china and vietnam. you really have to go back and look at past attempts by friends and foes alike to ring gauge of korea economically. let's look at the example starting with the postwar reconstruction of north korea. here we have the largest bailout in the history of the world of country. you have every communist country contributing something, either cash or in kind, from china and the soviet union giving one
third each of the total budget to countries like mongolia providing livestock. this was a major bailout, and yet they could not get north korea to join the international division of labor because north korea was concerned -- chemical son did not believe he could carry out -- kim ill son did not believe he could carry out his goals for the reunification if he were to become integrated into the system. the reason is the soviets were encouraging north korea to forgo industrialization because there were countries producing products in eastern europe, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel. they suggested to kimmel sung,
white and to export -- they suggested to youkim il-sung -- and he asked the soviet leader's, what happens when we are no longer allies? what is going to happen to us? it was like kicking away the latter. they were not taking into consideration north korea's concerns -- that 3 [inaudible] there were other attempts to integrate north korea. the chinese, after they opened up their economy encouraged
north korea and continue to encourage north korea. the north koreans will at times make minor changes that are a little more than stop-gap measures, but there is no sign that they're making any real reforms. south korea, with the sunshine policy, attempted to open north korea, to integrate north korea into the international system. north korea resisted. they were willing to receive, but they were not willing to reciprocate in any way. sadly, in the end, north korea was more willing to allow millions of people to starve to death than risk the increase of
foreign influence through the transformation -- the transformation of their political economy in exchange for financial assistance. so, to expect washington to succeed in engaging north korea and opening north korea where the socialist bloc and south korea failed, seems to take this idea of american exceptional listen to a new extreme. -- american exceptional as some -- american exceptionalism to a new extreme. in closing, we need to be mindful of the fact that because of this six decades of non- recognition, we are -- it is
difficult for us -- we really need to be much more cautious and much more skeptical in developing policies. we need to be much more conscious of north korea's broader history because the north korean leaders attach so much important history themselves. so, the mindful of this in formulating our policies otherwise they will be doomed to failure. with that, thank you. >> can you hear me?
the sound of my own voice. i want to thank the wilson center for inviting me and giving me a chance to come downtown. i don't get downtown very often. whenever i do, especially in the summertime, i'm and pressed again at what a sweet, sleepy, self important town this is. [laughter] the town a reminds me most of in some ways is not obviously york, paris or london, or homburg, it is john young. -- is pyongyang.
the physical plant of this town -- there are a lot of similarities. it's very funny. if you stand as i did at the corner of 12th and e street at 1:00 in the afternoon, in the capital of the strongest country on earth, there's not much more traffic than there is in pyongyang. very striking. either don't draw any conclusions, i dislike to make observations sometimes and let them percolate in my brain. so, the question is, how confident are we in our ability to know north korea? i was asked to comment thoughtfully on that issue. thoughtfully -- that's the everest of public meetings like this.
it's a very high bar. but i once had extremely strong feelings about this problem, when i was in the midst of the combat within the intelligence community. we've wrestled and fought vigorously hammer and tong over this. fortunately, i retired. time really does heal old wounds and memory fades. so i think i can be thought long this. without jumping out of my seat, perhaps. the question is, confidence in whose judgment? the question is how do we be confident in our ability to north korea? as a taunt those said to the lone ranger, what do you mean "our?"
this is a full-time job. a full-time job. what that means is the common wisdom of the part-time commentators and what i call the policy dilettantes really doesn't have any place in this game. they filled the op-ed pages and crowd into the air waves, of course, but as we heard james suggest, a lot of that is hot air and empty words. this is the public arena. the question, i suppose, next is -- what about the formal ability of the lavishly funded u.s. government programs that are supposed to get at these answers to these questions?
i will not give a great yet. we will give a grade at the end, perhaps when we examine a little bit more closely what is strong about these programs and what is not so strong. you can divide probably the fundamental problem in two parts. processes and people. we certainly do not lack for collection capabilities, especially technical collection. we can collect amounts of material, distributed instantly
all over washington and all over the world. they took all the analysts around to see the operations of the cia, and that was this fellow with this reversing on his thumb going through a mound of papers like this at work speed able to distribute these hundreds of pages that had come in. we still did these by hand back then, and it worked pretty well. now, we have probably increased by 8000fold the amount of paper -- a thousandfold the amount of paper and information that comes in. it shows up instantly on the computer screen, and the result is the analysts are overwhelmed
with information, and the job is to pick what is most important. in my experience, what happened very often was what bob's to the top of this pile is what is sexiest, and what is sexiest is them most classified -- is what is the most classified, that piece of information for which you have clearance is what someone may not. this is not a prescription for good analysis necessarily, but it is part of the way that the system keeps is self-employed -- keeps its self employed. collectors get highly classified information. analysts fight to handle the information. they give it to policy-makers who salivate when they read it and want more more, and it goes
back to policymakers again. what i think our biggest weakness is -- actually, not our sources, however. we have lots of sources. the biggest problem probably is us collectively. we americans have a big problem thinking about north korea. it hypnotizes us in a way. it causes some of our rational thought processes to freeze up. it is too often conceived of by people as the plant will go -- a place very dark, very cold, and very far away -- as the planet pluto. as soon as i said that, i
remembered something -- i use the description once before, and blogger instantly send me a message very slightly reminded me that pluto is no longer a planet. so i beg your pardon. [laughter] my sense has always been -- and i had this pretty clearly explained to me one time by someone in the policy arena -- was that in many respects, analysts are not able simply to observe north korea. it is very insidious. it is not as if there's anything overt. nothing held on the wall or no daily loudspeaker reminder of this. but people feel obliged to judge
everything they see and say about north korea. not analyze -- judge. the judgment must, for some reason, always be - -- negative. everything has to be put in a negative context because if it is not, then there somehow the supposition that you are approving something in north korea, and, of course, you cannot do that. north korea is beyond the pale, so it does not help overall analysis of the place. i do not want to overemphasize that point, but it has always seemed to me to hover around the edges of our effort. the other problem is a lot of
the reporting we get about north korea from whatever sources always has a tinge of with the -- of wisdom to it. as a result, when you go to north korea, you are really primed to walk into something very weird. of course, it is not quite weird at all. so there is a warping of the analysis that takes place in washington that i think has a dilatory is a fact -- deletorious effect on the policy. what are some of the other problems that i can recall and i think are worth noting? the analysis seems to be p'yongyang-centric.
we always think about what is happening in p'yongyang, and we forget the fact that there are about 150 counties and at least 10, maybe more, cities where 21 million people reside outside of p'yongyang. that is not to lessen the importance of p'yongyang. it is only to remind ourselves that the analysis should take into account that north korea is a bigger place. the system functions within the country on the basis of all of these other places feeding in and leadership having to deal with problems in these other places. we tend not to see that in washington. there is too much circular information.
what we thought we learned was true is put down over here and pick up over here and reconfirmed because you heard it over here and then it is mixed full circle again. it is hard to break the circle. it is a natural tendency in a place like this, and that is why it is important for analysts to get out and hear other opinions and perspectives. there is too much echo chamber analysis. it is supposed to be clearances. people are supposed to raise questions about other people's analysis. there is a lot of "that was a good point" or "0, yes, i certainly agree with that." what started out as a shaky hypothesis -- and there is nothing wrong with starting with a shaky hypophysis, but it gets
stronger over time not because the evidence is better but because of the paths on the back. we have too little grass on history, and james highlighted that point. if you are interested in both korea and have not read the cold war history project, then you have not done your job. you have to read that. you must read it. and you will enjoy it. it is human, funny, to see the soviet ambassador interacting is sometimes hilarious. add salt -- it brings you to a number of essential conclusions and realizations that the north koreans that we deal with today are not all that different from the north koreans that existed
in days of yore, which should not be a surprise at all. if you read american history, there are continuities. you read history of any country in the world, there are continuities over time. therefore, why should we not learn more from that history? as much as we can. that is where the cold war history makes its contribution. i would caution, however, that what we are seeing in some of the cold war history is the cables returned from the field -- written from the field by diplomats, and diplomats are diplomats our diplomats. cables from the field, from foreign ministry officials in the field, resemble each other worldwide because you want to go
back to the capital and get a good position. the only way you can do that is if you can prove that you are so tough to these locals and you told them how things were supposed to be and they carry word or listen closely or fumbled and did not know what to say -- well, you have to get through that. you have to peel back away, and you cannot always take literally what they say about north koreans, so finding the balance point is also the fun in reading these documents, i think. we are a little bit too much burdened by the perception that north korea is a place of -- that is an information black hole. we scaring ourselves away from understanding that we know more about it than we think we do or
there was more information available than we think there is. any time we have someone stand up and tell you that north korea is an information black hole, you should check for your wallet and count the sort. what they are actually saying is nobody knows anything about north korea, and therefore, they can say virtually anything and cannot be contradicted. you should not fall for that, i don't think. technically, we get high marks -- not perfect marks, but pretty good marks. we get off the path when it comes to the very human enterprise of analysis and of prediction. we spent a lot of time worrying about capabilities. obviously, we have to worry about north korean military capabilities, but it is a trap
to focus on that explosively. it is a trap to focus too tightly on technical issues, just like it is a trap to focus simply on political or historical evidence and information. if there is an integration of these things, then we are sunk because the world exists not in isolation pockets or baskets, but it all fits together. we learn that lesson and managed to apply it, i think very astutely, in the mid-1990's when we got scientists and technical and regional people finally together and finally putting together their perceptions so that the scientists were not running of far away based on their technical understanding with no understanding of north korea at all, just making sort
of wild predictions about what was happening in north korea. on the other hand, the regional people who did not have a clue about these technical things were making their own wild predictions about what north korea was going to do when, in fact, the laws of physics apply in north korea, just like they do everything -- everywhere else. the north koreans cannot escape them. it is bringing these things together that ends up being very important. we have to be as much concerned with the what that has happened in north korea. we have to learn to start describing patiently and carefully the details without describing purpose intent to flatly describe what went on and begin to build all of.
let me end up with a joke, which i like. i think it applies to this very --stion we're talking about a ceo of a company calls an accountant in his office and says, "i'm going to meet with the board out here in a minute, and what i need from me is a one-word description of the state of this company." he opens his books and says, "that is pretty hard to do. one word, very complicated issues, nuances, some things i do not know yet." >> the ceo says, "i do not want to hear that. i want one word that describes it." he says, "we have all this information that is hard to put
together." >> if you do not give me that in 10 seconds, you are fired. i want one word that describes this." "good, close " he says. "see how easy that was?" the vice-president says that he heard that, and if you had two words, how would describe it. he says, "not good." [laughter] >> north korea it is not good -- north korea is not good. [laughter] i am happy to be back at the wilson center. i was here when the wilson center was in the castle, and that is when i wrote the kim il-
sung book. it was published in 1988, and it is still selling. i am one of those people who studied north korea. if there is something i do not know, i try to find out. i do not say i know a lot. north korea is still an enigmatic hermit kingdom where people are difficult. if you go to north korea, i have been there many times, but you cannot tell what it is, the north korea -- lots of it is
going on right now. today, in north korea, it is september 9, and september 9 is there founding day, sort of like july 4. it is a big celebration going on right now. it is not because they have children. we will talk about the successor, too, but it is actually the 62nd anniversary of the founding of the democratic people's republic of korea. the reason i accepted this invitation and came is to relieve some of the sense of urgency that i feel about north korea. one is north korea is convening party conference now, which is
different from party congress. party congress has not been convened ever since 1980, so it has been about 30 years that they did not convene. party conference is even older. they did not convene party congress since 1966, so party conference is its first time in something like 66 years. and why? it is not as simple as party conferences held to approve kim jong il's choice of his successor. i do not know yet, but we should find out about that. we should talk about that. another thing about north korea
is those of you who are watching north korea, the most routinely scheduled event in north korea is the meeting of the supreme people's assembly. it is like congress here. every four years, they have had elections. in north korea, it is once every five years. they have 687 representatives in north korea, and we all dismiss that while they are appointed, they are dismissed -- we do not even know who they are, but if
you studied a little bit, you would understand that there are 687 people last election in 2009. there were more first-timers' elected to the supreme people's assembly and the people who are members of the supreme people's assembly. the reason for my concern is 12 supreme people's assembly was held in april 2009 last year. this year, it usually holds once a year, so supreme people's assembly will help five of you,
and 11 cents was also the same way, and the 12 actually started in april, more or less to celebrate kim il-sung's birthday, and in a 2009, they had the first session. the second session was held april this year, that is 2010. all of a sudden, the first time i ain't kim jong il's reign of power, this supreme people's assembly session is held in july -- the first time in kim jong il's reign of power. why? the measures that they passed
that crossed the third session of the people's assembly are important measures that they passed. in other words, they have changed almost all of the cabinet in north korea and appointed a new prime minister and also even a member of the national defense council was replaced. one was promoted. one retired. the important thing that is going on in north korea and why that is going on. we talk very freely about succession in north korea, and a lot of people -- i do not like to talk about succession because i do not know. categorically, i think one japanese newspaper media person asked me last year at the time
of the eighth international human rights and refugees conference held in london, they asked me about succession, and i said that selecting kim jong il 's youngest son as the successor is false, and i doubt very much that that will happen. i'm still holding on to that theory because i'm going to tell you what the north koreans say about the succession. i do not think our speculation is as good as theirs. [laughter] i after -- after the first succession, we see the dramatic changes that occur in north
korea after kim il-sung died. when we were talking about succession of kim jong il, a lot of people said it would be just the same. today, people say that north korea is the same as it was when it was under kim il-sung. how wrong you are. one of the basic changes that occurred in of korea after kim il-sung has died -- i will name several. succession takes strong time. in the case from kim il-sung to kim jong il, it took almost 20 years. from 1974, it started out in kim il-sung's eyes in 1974, and even
then after he died, there were three years of mourning, one until -- one of preparation, and it was not until 1998 when the new government was established under kim jong il, so succession is not such an easy task of naming of its sons or next to the youngest sons or the daughter or whatever. it is not that simple. the basic fundamental change that occurred in north korea after kim jong il took over is that the prominence of the military -- kim jong il's government is predominantly military -- professional military in active duty run state. he was the communist party of north korea to run the country. kim jong il, in a party, for
example, since 1980 -- they did not hold the party conference, so 30 years we have neglected the party activity. some basic fundamental changes. notable changes that occurred that were not implemented in north korea are following -- there was economic relaxation on property ownership. north korean constitutionalism ended to implement this, but this was simply documents only.
there was a freedom of travel and domicile, that all koreans could go any place they wanted to go without permission and choose a place where they wanted to live. this also -- also, north koreans were able to own private property on a domestic plot where they could cramp in their yard. some of the vegetables that they do not have to submit to the government. now, north koreans did not implement this, but basically, the change that occurred in north korea after the succession is significant in north korea.
what will happen is this time, the succession were to come about -- that is what we should be talking about, not whether it is the third son or the second son or whatever -- illegitimate son or the legitimate son and all that. in the north korean version, i did not know anything about the succession question -- there are so many rumors and so many theories, i always go back and try to see what north koreans tell us about the succession. here is what they say -- whether you agree or not is immaterial. i am merely presenting to you what the north koreans say. the role of the leader consists
of creating a revolutionary idea and development. two, awakening the masses and unite them into an organized force. three, putting forward correct program of struggle and strategy and tactics and organizing and mobilizing the people for their own implementation. what kind of person should be a successor in north korea? one, successor should be infinitely loyal to the people. two, successor must match the ideas of the leader. 3, successors should embody the lofty virtues -- that is very easy because north korean leader does not have the virtue that you approve it anyway. fourth, successor should be chosen as a public leader in the
course of winning the trust of the mass. if the person has conspicuous quality and character as a leader and performs great exploits, it matters little -- be careful now -- it matters little whether the person is male or female, young or old. whether revolutionary record as long or short. and whether he is related in blood to the leader or not. this is what the north koreans say about the leader. they add two more items -- selection of successor should be from the younger generation. in other words, not the kim jong il's generation, but the next
generation. and successor should be nominated while kim jong il is alive -- while the leader is alive. --se are those koreans' these are north koreans' origin of succession. at least you know what they think about their succession. what is the second succession then? and the future? i think whoever becomes a successor, north korea will try to maintain the sustaining myth that keeps north korea going. that this idea and tradition of kim il-sung.
perhaps next generation leader will revise the party while kim jong il -- revive the party and be able to run the country, military, and party in a joint effort. also, there will not be such a great big change in north korean leadership who supports this successor. right now, i made a list of the people who are supporting kim jong il right now, and some of the people will not be reelected international defense council, and there are some people who will resign.
for example, north korean navy commander has retired. very recently settled this naval confrontation with south korea. i'm not going to go into all the names of the people. i just do not have enough time. also, the administration of north korea, the government -- they appointed a new prime minister who is a veteran. he was a deputy prime minister, and he was once replaced in 1983-1984, but north korea recently appointed a new prime minister and six vice ministers
-- new vice ministers -- to support him. the successor question is not as simple as we make it to be. if you want to know about the who's who in succession hierarchy, i will tell you as much as i know, but it is not very likely that they are going to name this person in this time. this time, they have a lot more important agenda going on in north korea today. thank you. >> ok, our final speaker. >> hello. let me first apologize for two
things. one, for coming in late. i had a teaching obligation that conflicts with this event. even though i moved the class up by an hour, i came in late. grade level seminars are impossible to stop once they get going. two, we apparently had a slight communication problem, and a powerpoint set up is not available. i will do whatever i can with what ever i have at the moment, which means i'm going to just turn my laptop around, and hopefully, you will be able to see some of the slides that i have. laugh if it is a little tricky because i have to see in order to control this. well, let's give it a try.
i will get to a top that is more contemporary and very relevant to today's policies. in this part of the town, in this part of the world, i suppose it is a given that the south korean naval ship was destroyed by a north korean torpedo. i suppose a majority in this room subscribe to that view. i do not know if there are any dissenters, but in some parts of the world, such as moscow and beijing, the fact does not seem to be accepted as such. even in south korea, there are many who have doubts about this official conclusion.
a recent poll shows that there are more who have doubts about this conclusion than they believe that north koreans actually destroyed the ship. so how is it possible that there still are people who do not believe the obvious? what i would like to do today is to walk you through some of the facts that are related that have been mobilized by the government-appointed joint investigation group to support its conclusions and that north korean ship sank the south korean ship, and see how much we know about the same instance. i hope by the end of my talk
that you -- some of you would at least have some questions about the facts that you thought you knew. so what are some of the basic things? a little tricky. well, let me ask some of the basic questions. when did it occur? where did it occur? how did it occur? since the joint investigation group claims that the time was severed by an outside explosion of a torpedo, has been some time analyzing the three things that would be produced by an outside explosion of a torpedo -- namely
bubble effect, shock wave, and fragments. is there any evidence that links the torpedo -- the famous torpedo that was recovered from under the sea -- and links that torpedo to the damages? finally, i will conclude with a question -- what do we really know? so where did it occur? excuse me, when did it occur? reports were that it happened at 9:20 on march 26, 2010, but the navy operation headquarters reported in its document that it occurred at 9:15, but the joint chiefs of staff had yet another
time -- 9:45. the board of audits found that the jcs had forged its document to change the time, and one representative said he had evidence that the jcs changed the time from 9:15 9:45 by adding these lines -- i do not know if you can see this. it is easy to change 15to 45 by adding to it is, but the real question is -- when did it occur? different parts of south korean government say different things. therefore, we do not actually know exactly when it happened. where did it occur? the korean navy technical data
system that tracks all navy ship movement shows that it disappeared at this point. but the navy claims the ship sank at another location here. and the patrols on the ship who was standing guard at the moment of the incident testified that they had observed rescue operations further down south, down here. so where did it really occur? we are not sure. how did the incident occurred? there were claims that an outside explosion produced a shock wave and a bubble effect that severed the ship like this.
it produces a shock wave first, and then, it bubbled this form, and it expands and shrinks a number of times, and the combination of shock wave and bobble destroyed the ship. -- the combination of shockwave and bubble destroyed the ship. these are pictures of a south korean torpedo experiment, and it shows an incoming torpedo comes toward this ship, explodes, sends a shock wave, creating a huge column of water, and then, the ship is severed in half.
that is how they claim the north korean torpedo destroyed the south korean ship. let's see if there was a bubble effect and a shock wave. in the claim was that the bubble effect affected the ship like this, and pressure from the bauble severed the ship, and this is a picture of the actual ship, and this is the accumulation. note to the wheel of things -- one, the simulation does not show that the bubble effect actually severs the ship. it does certain damages, but it does not sever the ship. and if the bubble severs the
ship, it will sever the ship where the stress is height, which is noted by this red color. if the bubble severed the ship, it should have, would have severed it right along this line. as you see, the ship was severed actually here. so there is a peculiar destroyed between the simulation and the damages of the ship itself. as you can see, there is a hole in a spherical shape because of the bubble at the bottom of the ship. the top part has a tear.
finally, this again shows that the bible does not sever the ship -- that the bubble does not sever the ship. let's take a look at the part of the ship that would have received the bubble directly. this was the bottom right in the middle that would have received the direct bubble impact. obviously, the ship was severed in two places, contrary to the assimilations -- contrary to the simulations that do not show any severance. two, there is no deformation in a bubble shape, contrary to the
simulation. 3, there is no tear in the middle, contrary to the simulation. so was there really the bubble effect? i do not know. they have failed to produce facts that would support the bubble effect. now, what about the shock wave? a majority of energy produced by an explosion of a torpedo is used to create a shock wave, and the initial graph i showed also shows the high level of shock. using a simple formula developed by the australian navy, i
estimate that 250 kilograms of tnt would have created pressure on the ship itself anywhere between 8000 and 18,000 psi. how destructive is 8000 psi? this is what a mere five would do to a house. the house is standing, starting to receive five-psi shock coming from a large explosion. this is tom shay that is supposed to have received 8000 psi of shock. again, there is an in congruence between the claim of shock
waves and the fact of damage on the ship. a shock wave also produces a secondary effect, and weapons on the ship will experience the reverberation from a shock wave and as a result fall will be to form. the ship shows no signs of a secondary effect. it is inconsistent with what is expected from a shock wave effect. i do not know if you can see this.
there is a tiny, fluorescent light bulb that remains intact. these things do not add up to the claim that there was a large shock wave coming from an explosion of a torpedo. what about the fragments? this was a rather large torpedo , and it should have produced and left a lot of friends, but there are no fragments on the ship, and there are no fragments under the sea, so where are the fragments -- it should have produced and left a lot of fragments. when they retrieved torpedo parts, it did not catch any
other fragments of these torpedo parts. if the fragments are not on the ship or not under the sea, where are they? i do not know, and this is a fact that is not consistent claims.'s what about the water column that a tornado explosion would have produced? south korea's experiment clearly shows a high and wide water column, but the sailor on the deck at the time of the incident testified that he felt a few drops on his face. two patrolmen testified that they observed a flashlight. there was no mention of water. and they identified its location far away from the location of the incident.
so what do we know about the incident? we are not sure exactly when it happened. we are not sure exactly where it happened. there is no sign of the bubble effect. no sign of shock wave. no sign of a fragment. was there really an outside explosion? the only thing that i could say is that there are no facts that support an outside explosion. now, what about the famous torpedo park? -- famous for piddle parts? do they not prove that north korean torpedos destroyed the ship? the only material evidence that links the torpedo is white powder that was recovered from
the torpedo parts and some parts of the ship, and the true scientific analysis of the power to show that the powers from the ship match the power from the torpedo. that was the material evidence that links torpedos to the destruction of the ship. they did what is called energy .ispersive spectroscoping essentially, it identifies at times -- atoms that make up a material. the power in this case. as you can see, the samples show identical pieces at
identical locations, said the same peaks at the same location indicates they are the same atom. aluminum, oxygen, carbon, and other things. the height of its peak indicates the amount of that at some -- that atom in the test material. you can see the three are consistent. they are made up of the same adams, and they contain the same amount of these atoms -- they are made up of the same atoms. this must be evidence that the torpedo is somehow related, somehow affected to the ship. unfortunately, no.
because an explosion would produce aluminum oxide, and the ratio of aluminum oxide that will show up on eds is this one. the ratio of aluminum to oxygen should be about 0.23 if the white stuff was aluminum oxide that had resulted from the explosion, but as we can see, the ratio between aluminum and oxygen is almost 1 to 1. 0.91, to be exact, and that
ratio matches this data, which actually is the atomic composition of aluminum hydroxide, and aluminum hydroxide has nothing to do with explosions. it occurs naturally in nature. it is found in natural or, and it can be formed as a result of aluminum being exposed to water and oxygen for a long time. so the eds actually proves that the white powder it recovered from the ship and from the torpedo has nothing to do with the explosion. the second test they did was
analyzing the molecular structure of the test materials, using x-ray beams, and, as you can clearly see, the first two data are different from the third. the third one has high peaks here, there, and there, and those indicated aluminum, but the first two do not have those high peaks. what do they tell? these data show that the stuff found from the ship and torpedo are different from the stuff that the j.i.g. obtained from a
test explosion. in other words, j.i.g.'s analysis proves that the white material's molecular structure has nothing to do with an explosion. so the true scientific analyses that the j.i.g. has actually performed shows that the white stuff covering the ship and the torpedo has nothing to do with explosions. so, was there really an explosion? and did the torpedo really destroy the ship? i do not know. i have not seen facts yet. the j.i.g. --